eminent and friendly opponents so often call to my attention. If I do
not err, the very warmth of these interesting discussions shows me
that the honor of being personally connected with a great reform
touches us more than we are willing to admit, or than practical
interests alone could effect.
Professor ADAMS himself supplies an illustration of this. He should
remember the lively discussions of the English and French press on the
occasion of the magnificent discovery of Neptune, and on the claims of
the two illustrious competitors who were then the objects of universal
admiration. If we go back in history, do we not see the friends of
Newton and of Leibnitz equally contesting with asperity the discovery
of the infinitesimal calculus. The love of glory is one of the noblest
motives of men; we must bow before it, but we must also be careful not
to permit it to produce bad fruits.
When our men of science sought, a hundred years ago, to determine a
new measure of length, some one proposed the length of the seconds
pendulum at Paris. This measure was rejected, because it introduced
the idea of time in a measure of length, and also because it was
peculiar to Paris, and because a measure acceptable to the whole world
was desired. It is important not to introduce questions of national
rivalries into a scientific reform intended to be accepted by all, and
history shows us precisely on this question of prime meridians what
active rivalries there are. There was a time when almost every nation
which had a large observatory had a meridian, and that meridian was
considered an object of national pride. There were the meridians of
Paris, of Rome, of Florence, of London, and so on, and no nation was
willing to abandon its meridian for that of another. If you please to
adopt either the meridian of Greenwich, Washington, Paris, Berlin,
Pulkowa, Vienna, or Rome, our reform may be accepted for the moment,
especially if it offers immediate advantages in economy; but it will
contain within it a vice which will prevent its becoming definitive,
and we are not willing to participate in action which will not be
definitive.
Whatever we may do, the common prime meridian will always be a crown
to which there will be a hundred pretenders. Let us place the crown on
the brow of science, and all will bow before it.
Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States, said that he thought
that the Delegate of France, Professor JANSSEN, had explained very
fully the advantages of a neutral meridian, but he thought that he had
not explained how we are to determine the neutral meridian. He added
that he quite agreed with Professor ADAMS and Professor NEWCOMB, that
to establish a prime meridian it is necessary to refer its position to
an astronomical observatory.
He stated further that if a meridian were selected passing through the
Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, it must be referred to some initial point
whose longitude is known, and the consequence of that would be, it
seemed to him, that the prime meridian selected would still be
dependent upon some national observatory, and that to select a
meridian at random without reference to any observatory would lead to
the utmost confusion, and, he had no doubt, would not be entertained
by any one.
Prof. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. When my honorable colleague,
Commander SAMPSON, reads the remarks which I have just made, he will
see that I have very fully shown what characterizes a neutral or
geographical meridian, as contradistinguished from those meridians
which, passing through capitals and observatories of different
countries, bear the names of nations, whilst geographical meridians
bear geographical names, such as the meridian of Ferro, of the Azores,
Behring's Strait, &c. Of course it would be necessary to connect the
places selected with observatories, either by calculation or in some
other effective manner. I said all this a few moments ago.
Mr. RUTHERFURD, Delegate of the United States, then remarked that in
addition to what had been said he would merely call attention to the
fact that after that neutral point had been established it would cease
to be a neutral meridian; that if the Azores be chosen they belong to
Portugal, and he did not know any island in the Pacific which would
serve the purpose, and at the same time not be subject to this
objection; that perhaps Behring's Strait, mentioned by the French
Delegate, might be less objectionable than any other place. He added
that it is absolutely necessary that there should be some means of
determining the difference between this adopted place and the other
places, or else no use could be made of it. We must know how far other
places are from the prime meridian, and for that reason it is
necessary that it should be on land. Now, that land must belong to
some country, and after we have fixed upon it it would cease to be a
neutral meridian, and it would have to be connected by telegraphic
wires with all the great observatories in the world.
Prof. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. My honorable friend, Mr.
RUTHERFURD, says that from the time the prime meridian was chosen it
would cease to be neutral. I reply that he confounds a scientific
principle with a question of property in the soil. If, for reasons of
a geographical nature, we should fix upon a point in the Azores, that
meridian would be neutral, because it would have been chosen on
scientific grounds alone. The equator is neutral because geographical
conditions give it that character; and, nevertheless, the countries
along it belong to various nations, do they not? As to the manner of
connecting the prime meridian with the system of observatories, I have
already explained how this may be done in my former speech.
General STRACHEY, Delegate of England, remarked that he had rather
hesitated about saying anything on the subject, after the expression
of so many opinions of persons better qualified to speak than himself,
but he felt that he ought to make a few remarks as to the distinction
which Prof. JANSSEN had attempted to establish between astronomical
and geographical longitude. It appeared to him that longitude was
longitude. It would never do if, for geographic purposes, we are to
have a second or third-class longitude and for astronomical purposes a
first-class longitude. He said that as a geographer he repudiated any
such idea. When you come to the practical application of the
determination of longitude at sea for maritime purposes, it is true
that a much less accurate determination suffices than would suffice
for the determination of longitude for astronomical observatories;
but, for all that, what is the object of a ship desiring to know what
its place at sea is? Obviously to arrive at the port to which it is
destined, and the object to be obtained is such a determination of the
longitude as to enable that ship to arrive at its port without danger.
You obtain a comparatively imperfect determination of longitude, but
it is sufficiently accurate to prevent you from striking on the solid
earth. But how is the longitude of the port to be determined?
Certainly, as has been properly said, by astronomical observations,
which can only be made with certainty on the earth. Consequently, it
seemed to him that it is absolutely essential for fixing an initial
meridian for the determination of longitude that it should be placed
at an astronomical observatory which can be connected with other
places by astronomical observations and by telegraph wires, and that
the idea of fixing a neutral meridian is nothing more than the
establishment of an ideal meridian really based upon some point at
which there is located an observatory. This has been repeated once or
twice before, and I need not enlarge upon it.
Prof. JANSSEN, Delegate of France. My honorable colleague, General
STRACHEY, thinks that longitude is longitude, and that there is not an
astronomical longitude and a geographical longitude. I answer, that
this is, nevertheless, what the nature of things indicates. The
longitude of observatories, or rather the difference of longitude
between those establishments, must be fixed with an accuracy which is
never sufficiently great. In the Bureau of Longitude of France we are
occupied with the differences of longitude of European observatories,
and we adopt for these calculations all the latest scientific
improvements, and especially the employment of electricity. Geography,
especially for general purposes, does not require this great accuracy,
which could not be expressed on maps. All geographers agree upon that
subject. A statement of the longitude is like the statement of a
weight, of a measure, or of anything, and its precision must vary
according to the purpose to which it is applied. Is not a weighing
necessary to determine a chemical equivalent of an entirely different
kind from that of a commercial weighing? Yet it is still a weight. Is
it necessary to insist on this further? It is entirely a secondary
question. If General STRACHEY, whom I had the pleasure of meeting in
India, demands that the prime meridian should be connected with
observatories with rigorous accuracy, this can be done if it be
desired; the astronomical and electrical methods at our disposal will
permit of it.
Prof. ABBE, Delegate of the United States, said that he was quite
interested in the determination, if possible, of what is a neutral
meridian. We are precisely in the condition in which we were years
ago, when the French Institute determined that the basis of the metric
system should be the one ten-millionth of the quadrant of the globe.
Having settled upon that ideal basis, they spent years of labor, and
finally legalized a standard metre, which is still preserved at Paris.
We have now the same problem to solve. We have before us the idea of a
neutral meridian, and, if it be adopted, we must see that there be
embodied in the system the distance of certain other important places
with reference to it. The only suggestion given as to the location of
this neutral meridian is Behring's Strait. This is said to be a
neutral meridian, because it lies between Russia and America; but how
long will it remain so? Perhaps a year or two, or perhaps fifty years.
Who knows when Russia will step over and reconquer the country on this
side of Behring's Strait? Who knows when America will step over and
purchase half of Siberia? At any rate, that point is not cosmopolitan;
something must be found which is fixed, either within the sphere of
the earth or in the stars above the earth--something that is above all
human considerations--otherwise we shall fail in securing a neutral
meridian.
Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States, said that he would
like to ask the Delegate from France, Mr. JANSSEN, where he would
place the neutral meridian.
The PRESIDENT said that the Delegate of the United States, Commander
SAMPSON, puts a question which seems to be somewhat categorical.
At this point in the proceedings the PRESIDENT stated that it would be
convenient if the Conference would take a short recess to enable the
Secretaries, with himself, to consult upon the subject of the
preparation and approval of the protocols.
A recess was thereupon taken.
After the recess, the Delegate from France, Prof. JANSSEN, presented
the following resolution:
"_Resolved_, That the decision upon the motion of the French
Delegates, in regard to the choice of a neutral meridian, be
postponed to the next meeting of the Conference."
He said that as he must speak French, and as several of his colleagues
could, perhaps, not entirely grasp the meaning of the discussion, he
asked for the adjournment of the vote until the next meeting, so that
the protocol of this meeting may be printed and distributed to the
members of the Conference.
The PRESIDENT stated that as far as he understood this resolution it
merely amounted to this: that no vote shall be taken upon the original
resolution of the French Delegate--namely, as to the adoption of a
neutral meridian--until the next meeting of the Conference, when the
protocols in both languages will have been printed and distributed.
Commander SAMPSON, Delegate of the United States, inquired whether, if
this resolution were adopted, it would be necessary to vote upon the
original question at the next meeting.
The PRESIDENT replied that was not necessarily the case. The Delegate
of France simply desires that no vote shall be taken to-day. The
original subject will come up and be open for debate at the next
meeting, but it seemed to the Chair that it should be as far as
possible exhausted to-day, so that the Delegates could have the whole
matter before them at the next meeting.
Mr. LEFAIVRE, Delegate from France, said that the arguments already
presented will require time for careful consideration. Consequently he
asked for the adjournment of the vote, and he hoped that none of his
colleagues would object to it.
The PRESIDENT stated that he would venture to suggest, for the purpose
of preventing delay, that so far as was possible any arguments that
are to be offered should be made now, so that in the protocol of this
day's proceedings, which will be of considerable length, these
arguments may be incorporated.
Mr. RUSTEM EFFENDI, Delegate of Turkey, stated that it would be
impossible to prepare a proper protocol of this Conference without the
assistance of a French stenographer, and he therefore suggested that
such a stenographer be secured as early as possible.
The PRESIDENT stated that efforts had been made to obtain a French
stenographer, but without success, and that if any Delegate knows of
such a stenographer and will communicate with the Chair it will be
happy to take the necessary steps to secure his services.
Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden, then made the following
statement:
I beg to propose that the Conference adjourn at the call of the
President, that the time and hour for the next meeting be communicated
to the Delegates 24 hours before the meeting, and that at the same
time a proof-copy of the protocols of the present meeting be
forwarded.
He added that by giving the Delegates 24 hours after the protocols are
printed time would be allowed them to revise the protocols and make
such corrections as they thought necessary, and those corrections
could be reported to the Secretaries and made in the printed text. The
protocol can then be finally and definitively printed and approved at
the beginning of the next meeting of the Conference.
The proposition of the Delegate of Sweden was then adopted.
The Conference then adjourned at 5 o'clock p. m., subject to the call
of the President.
IV.
SESSION OF OCTOBER 13, 1884.
The Conference met pursuant to adjournment in the Diplomatic Hall, in
the State Department, at one o'clock P. M.
Present:
Austria-Hungary: Baron I. VON SCHÆFFER.
Brazil: Dr. LUIZ CRULS.
Chili: Mr. F. V. GORMAS and Mr. A. B. TUPPER.
Colombia: Commodore FRANKLIN.
Costa Rica: Mr. J. F. ECHEVERRIA.
France: Mr. A. LEFAIVRE and Mr. JANSSEN.
Germany: Baron H. VON ALVENSLEBEN and Mr. HINCKELDEYN.
Great Britain: Sir F. J. O. EVANS, Prof. J. C. ADAMS, Lieut.
General STRACHEY, and Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING.
Guatemala: Mr. MILES ROCK.
Hawaii: Hon. W. D. ALEXANDER and Hon. LUTHER AHOLO.
Italy: Count ALBERT DE FORESTA.
Japan: Professor KIKUCHI.
Liberia: Mr. WILLIAM COPPINGER.
Mexico: Mr. LEANDRO FERNANDEZ and Mr. ANGEL ANGUIANO.
Netherlands: Mr. G. DE WECKHERLIN.
Paraguay: Capt. JOHN STEWART.
Russia: Mr. C. DE STRUVE, Major-General STEBNITZKI, and
Mr. J. DE KOLOGRIVOFF.
San Domingo: Mr. M. DE J. GALVAN.
Spain: Mr. JUAN VALERA, Mr. EMILIO RUIZ DEL ARBOL, and
Mr. JUAN PASTORIN.
Sweden: Count CARL LEWENHAUPT.
Switzerland: Col. EMILE FREY.
Turkey: Mr. RUSTEM EFFENDI.
Venezuela: Dr. A. M. SOTELDO.
United States: Rear-Admiral C. R. P. RODGERS, Mr. LEWIS
M. RUTHERFURD, Mr. W. F. ALLEN, Commander W. T.
SAMPSON, and Prof. CLEVELAND ABBE.
Absent:
Denmark: Mr. C. S. A. DE BILLE.
Salvador: Mr. A. BATRES.
The PRESIDENT. In view of the many communications addressed to the
President of this Conference, having reference to the business before
it, presenting statements and arguments in relation thereto, the Chair
asks that a committee be appointed, to which shall be referred all
such communications, and that the committee be instructed to make such
report upon them as it may deem advisable.
Count LEWENHAUPT, Delegate of Sweden. I beg leave to propose to the
Conference that the appointment of this committee be left to the
President.
Mr. SOTELDO, Delegate of Venezuela. I second the motion of the
Delegate of Sweden.
Mr. DE STRUVE, Delegate of Russia. I entertain the same opinion, and I
support the motion.
The motion was then unanimously adopted.
The PRESIDENT. I will name as the members of the Committee the
Delegate of Great Britain, Professor ADAMS; the Delegate of Germany,
Mr. HINCKELDEYN; the Delegate of the United States, Professor ABBE;
the Delegate of Japan, Mr. KIKUCHI; and the Delegate of Costa Rica,
Mr. ECHEVERRIA.
PRESIDENT. Alter a discussion of only three hours this Conference
adjourned a week ago to-day, subject to the call of its President.
Owing to the want of a French stenographer to report the words that
were spoken in French, there has been much delay in preparing the
protocol, which has not yet been completed. Fortunately, an
experienced French stenographer has been procured through the kind
intervention of Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, of the delegation from Great
Britain, and Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Deputy Minister of Marine for the
Dominion of Canada. We may now hope to have a fairly accurate report
of what is said, both in French and English, needing only slight
verbal corrections, and the Chair trusts that delegates may find it
convenient to make the corrections very promptly, so that the
protocols may be printed and verified as speedily as possible.
Should any delegate, who has not yet spoken, desire to address the
Conference upon the resolution of the Delegate from France, his
remarks will now be received, and when the mover of the resolution
shall close the debate, the vote will be taken, if such be the
pleasure of the Conference.
Mr. SANDFORD FLEMING, Delegate of Great Britain. I have listened with
great attention and deep interest to the remarks which have fallen
from the several gentlemen who have spoken, and I desire your kind
indulgence for a few moments while I explain the views I have formed
on the motion of the distinguished Delegates from France.
I feel that the important question which this Conference has to
consider must be approached in no narrow spirit. It is one which
affects every nationality, and we should endeavor, in the common
interest, to set aside any national or individual prejudices we
possess, and view the subject as members of one community--in fact, as
citizens of the world. Acting in this broad spirit, we cannot fail to
arrive at conclusions which will promote the common good of mankind.
In deliberating on the important subject before us, it seems to me
there are two essential points which we should constantly bear in
mind.
1. We should consider what will best promote the general advantage,
not now only, but for all future years, while causing at the present
time as little individual and national inconvenience as possible.
2. We should, in coming to a determination on the main question for
which this Conference is called, leave nothing undone to avoid
offence, now or hereafter, to the sensitiveness of individual nations.
The motion is, that the initial meridian to be chosen should be
selected on account of its neutrality. This undoubtedly involves the
selection of an entirely new meridian, one which has never previously
been used by any nation, as all initial meridians in use are more or
less national, and, as such, would not be considered neutral in the
sense intended by the honorable Delegates from France.
Let us suppose that this Conference adopted the motion. Let us
suppose, further, that we found a meridian quite independent of and
unrelated to any existing initial meridian. Would we then have
accomplished the task for which we are met? I ask, would the
twenty-six nations here represented accept our recommendation to adopt
the neutral meridian? I greatly fear that the passing of the
resolution would not in the least promote the settlement of the
important question before the Conference. The world has already at
least eleven different first meridians. The adoption of the new
meridian contemplated by the Delegates from France would, I apprehend,
simply increase the number and proportionately increase the difficulty
which so many delegates from all parts of the earth are assembled here
to remove.
This would be the practical effect of the passing of the resolution.
If it had any effect, it would increase the difficulty, and I need not
say that is not the object which the different Governments had in view
when they sent delegates to this Conference. The President has well
pointed out in his opening address the advantages which would be
gained, and the great dangers which, at times, would be avoided by
seafaring vessels having one common zero of longitude. Besides the
benefits which would accrue to navigation, there are advantages of
equal importance in connection with the regulation of time, to spring,
I trust, from our conclusions.
It does not appear to me that the adoption of the motion would in any
way advance these objects. I do not say that the principle of a
neutral meridian is wrong, but to attempt to establish one would, I
feel satisfied, be productive of no good result. A neutral meridian is
excellent in theory, but I fear it is entirely beyond the domain of
practicability. If such be the case, it becomes necessary to consider
how far it would be practicable to secure the desired advantages by
adopting as a zero some other meridian which, while related to some
existing first meridian, would not be national in fact, and would have
the same effect as a perfectly neutral meridian in allaying national
susceptibilities.
The selection of an initial meridian related to meridians now in use
gives us a sufficiently wide choice. Allow me to read the following
list, showing the number and the total tonnage of vessels using the
several meridians named, in ascertaining their longitude.
======================================================================
| SHIPS OF ALL KINDS. | PER CENT.
INITIAL MERIDIANS. +---------------------+--------------------
| Number. | Tonnage. | Ships. | Tonnage.
---------------------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------
Greenwich..................| 37,663 |14,600,972 | 65 | 72
Paris......................| 5,914 | 1,735,083 | 10 | 8
Cadiz......................| 2,468 | 666,602 | 5 | 3
Naples.....................| 2,263 | 715,448 | 4 | 4
Christiana.................| 2,128 | 695,988 | 4 | 3
Ferro......................| 1,497 | 567,682 | 2 | 3
Pulkova....................| 987 | 298,641 | 11/2 | 11/2
Stockholm..................| 717 | 154,180 | 11/2 | 1
Lisbon.....................| 491 | 164,000 | 1 | 1
Copenhagen.................| 435 | 81,888 | 1 | 1/2
Rio de Janeiro.............| 253 | 97,040 | 1/2 | 1/2
Miscellaneous..............| 2,881| 534,569 | 41/2 | 21/2
|---------+-----------+--------+-----------
Total ...............| 57,697|20,312,093 | 100 | 100
---------------------------+---------+-----------+--------+-----------